تبیین میزان اثربخشی آموزش های پایه معماری به مخاطب عام نوجوان (موردپژوهی: خوانش نماهای معماری)

محورهای موضوعی : طراحی شهری

مسعود ناری قمی ¹ , سجاد دامیار ² , سپیده ملایری ³

1 - دکترای معماری دانشگاه تهران استادیار و عضو هیات علمی دانشگاه فنی و حرفه‌ای، قم، ایران.
2 - دکترای معماری دانشگاه تهران و عضو هیأت علمی دانشگاه پیام نور ایلام.
3 - دانشجوی دکترای معماری، گروه معماری، واحد سمنان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، سمنان، ایران.

تاریخ دریافت : 1397/06/31 تاریخ پذیرش : 1397/12/06 تاریخ انتشار : 1398/10/01

کلید واژه: نوجوانان, نما, آموزش صریح, آموزش ضمنی, آموزش عمومی معماری,

چکیده مقاله :

در این مطالعه با توجه به گسست میان جامعه و معماران در کنار عدم موفقیت رویکردهای پست مدرن در مردمی کردن معماری و ضرورت پرداختن مجدد به آموزش معماری به عموم، یک تجربه برای برآورد تأثیر آموزش معماری به نوجوانان در تعمیق نگرش آنان به معماری اجراشده است. در این تحقیق انواع فهم از نما با تحلیل تصویری مشارکتی و افتراق معنایی، میزان درک مردم در مورد سه کاربری مسکونی، اداری و مذهبی سنجش شده است؛ با توجه به نوع سنجش از تحلیل تصویری مشارکتی استفاده‌شده است.54 تصویر در دودسته (نماهای محلی دامغان، نماهای پراکنده از کل ایران) در نظر گرفته شد و گروه آزمون پس از یک آموزش هدایت‌شده کوتاه‌مدت در شهر ایلام سنجش شد. نتایج بررسی میدانی حاکی از آن است که هر نوع از چهار گونه آموزش ارائه‌شده در این پژوهش، در تغییر دیدگاه ها و نزدیک شدن به مقاصد معماری در توجه دادن عموم مؤثر است.

چکیده انگلیسی:

The catastrophic breakup between public realm and architectural society, along with the lack of successful achievement of the postmodern elite attitudes towards the popularization of architecture, has prompted the public to reintroduce architectural education as a necessity not only for architects and architecture students themselves but also for all people. The researchers' experiences indicate that there are potentially active areas for youth and teens to engage in architectural issues that public educations are the most feasible area amongst them. In this study, an elementary experience has been taken to assess the effectiveness of architectural training on teens to deepen their attitude towards architecture. To assess the role of education, people’s common judgment about the elevations of buildings has been used as a tool of inquiry, since elevation alone, is the most visible part of buildings for the public. In the at hand research, different interpretations of building elevations are categorized within six terms so basic elements along with allegorical, behavioral, contextual, memorial and gestalt ordering characteristics are specified as specialized factors. This research is based on participatory picture ordering with semantic differential technique are used as survey to study perception of people about three residential, administrative, and religious uses of various samples. 54 images were used as an evaluation tool in two different categories (City of Damghan local images and scattered building pictures of the whole of Iran) to be sorted due to three architectural functions. Every 18 images were specified for one of the three groups of usages while amongst these 18 pictures, 6 were selected from urban context of Damghan, 6 were chosen from famous recent works of Iranian architects all around the country based on 6 factors of cognitive characteristics of architectural elevation. The other 6 ones were selected from various locations of Iran from more ordinary of less famous buildings amongst architects. Evidence from respondents in Damghan city was considered for assessing teen’s raw mentality. The experimental group was assessed after short-term guidance workshop in the city of Ilam. These workshops were intended as a pilot experience for studying feasibility of public education about a special discourse of architecture. So upon its discovery nature, four proposed types of transferring data to the public were considered: implicit critical debate, explicit critical debate, implicit positive (informational) debate and explicit positive (informational) debate. The results of the field survey and the four proposed training types including implicit and explicit positive debate show that any training could be effective in changing the unique and collective viewpoints of teens towards the goals of architecture and the change in the type of teaching to people brings different directions into public views. It is worth to mention that there were significant differences between the results of our trained people with those who have official architectural education. While there is no considerable content in architectural education about the matter it is not very surprising. The cornerstone of it can be founded in high school textbooks and workshops to accommodate architectural concepts.

منابع و مأخذ:

1. جی­هوا، (1365). لوبان نجاری می­آموزد. (محمد سلامت، مترجم). تهران: کانون پرورش فکری کودکان و نوجوانان.


2. حجّت، عیسی؛ و آقالطیفی، آزاده. (1387). وجه پنهان آموزش معماری. مجموعه مقالات سومین همایش آموزش معماری. پردیس هنرهای زیبا (دوره سوم) (صص. 129-109). تهران: انتشاراتدانشگاه تهران.


3. حجّت، عیسی؛ و آقالطیفی، آزاده. (1389). تأملی در نقش مخاطب در کیفیت معماری امروز ایران. هنرهای زیبا ـ معماری و شهرسازی، 2 (42)، 25-35.


4. فاضلی، نعمت‌الله. (1382). بررسی تطبیقی فرهنگ دانشگاهی ایران و بریتانیا، مطالعه‌ای انسان‌شناختی در علل ناکارآمدی آموزش دانشگاهی در ایران. نامه انسان‌شناسی، 2(3)، 93-132.


5. قدمی، مجید. (1390). نقش آموزش متوسطه در ارتقا مهارت‌های زیبایی‌شناختی دانشجویان معماری: آموزش­های گسسته در شاخه نظری و پیوسته در هنرستان‌ها. نقش‌جهان،1(1)، 20-5.


6. قیومی بیدهندی؛ و مهرداد؛ و شمس، امید. (1391). درآمدی بر تاریخ ذهنیت عامه در معماری ایران. دو فصلنامه مطالعات معماری ایران.1 (2)، 5-26.


7. لنگ، جان. (1381). آفرینش نظریه معماری: نقش علوم رفتاری در طراحی محیط.(علیرضا ‌عینی فر، مترجم). تهران: دانشگاه تهران.

8. ناری قمی، مسعود. (1390). دیدگاه‌های هنجاری هنرجویان نقشه‌کشی معماری در مورد معماری و جایگاه آن نمونه موردی شهر قم. هنرهای زیبا معماری و شهرسازی، (46)، 63-74.


9. نوایی، کامبیز. (1381). شرحی بر کتاب لوبان نجاری می‌آموزد. خیال، 1(1)، 90-97.


10. 
    
    
    
    1. Akin, Ö. (2002). Case-based instruction strategies in architecture.In Design Studies, 23(4), 407-431.
    
    
    2. Baumann A.S., & Balicevic D. (2014). The Ultimate Construction Site Book. USA: Twirl.
    
    
    3. Beaty, A. (2007). Iggy Peck, architect, Abrams Books for Young Readers. New York: London.
    
    
    4. Beaty, A. (2013). Rosie revere, engineer. New York: Abrams Books for Young Readers.
    
    
    5. Brey, P. (2006).Ethical Aspects of Behavior-Steering Technology. In P.P. Verbeek & A. Slob (eds.), User Behavior and Technology Development: Shaping Sustainable Relations Between Consumers and Technologies (pp.357-364). Netherlands: Springer
    
    
    6. Colvin, C. R. (2013). Significant Life Experience: Exploring the Lifelong Influence of Place-Based Environmental and Science Education on Program Participants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Colorado. Phd.
    
    
    7. Conway, W. F., & Schulte, M. (2007). Culture and the recalibration of first ring suburbs. In K. Tanzer and R. Longoria (eds.). The green braid: towards an architecture of ecology, economy and Equity (pp.113-121). UK: Routledge.
    
    
    8. CPRC (Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center). (2018). the Charrette: Redevelopment by Design: an Introduction to ReusePlanning Workshops for Superfund Sites. Retrieved January, 16, 2018. from www.epa.gov.
    
    
    9. Davis, H. (2006). The culture of building. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
    
    
    10. Devlin, K., & Nasar, J. L. (1989). The beauty and the beast: Some preliminary comparisons of ‘high’ versus ‘popular’ residential architecture and public versus architect judgments of same. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9(4), 333-344.
    
    
    11. Francescato, G., Weidemann S., & Anderson, J. R. (2018). Evaluating the Built Environment from the Users’ Perspective: Implications of Attitudinal Models of Satisfaction. In W. F.E. Preiser, A. E. Hardy & U. Schramm (eds.). Building Performance Evaluation (ch.7, pp.87-98). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG.
    
    
    12. Frank, O. L. (2013). Exploring a best practice approach to operability and maintainability of low carbon buildings in the UK. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Nottingham. PhD.
    
    
    13. Groat, L. N., & Després, C. (1991). The significance of architectural theory for environmental design research. In E.H.Zube & G.T.Moore (eds). Advances in environment, behavior, and design (vol.3) (pp. 3-52). Boston: Springer.
    
    
    14. Groat, L. & Wang, D. (2013). Architectural Research Methods. Second Edition. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
    
    
    15. Groot-Marcus, J. P., Terpstra, P. M. J., Steenbekkers, L.P.A. & Butijn, C. A. A. (2006). Technology and Household Activities. In P.P. Verbeek & A. Slob (Eds.). User Behavior and Technology Development: Shaping Sustainable Relation Between Consumers and Technologies (Ch.4, pp.33-42). Netherlands: Springer.
    
    
    16. Guarnaccia, S. (2010). The three little pigs: an architectural tale. New York: Abrams Books for Young Readers.
    
    
    17. Kwok, A. G., & Grondzik, W. (2007). The Green Studio Handbook: Environmental Strategies for Schematic Design. Oxford: Architectural Press.
    
    
    18. Larsen, Larissa & Hrlan, Sharon L. (2006). Desert dreamscapes: Residential landscape preference and behavior. In Landscape and urban planning, (78), 85-100.
    
    
    19. Lindsey, G., Todd, J. A., Hayter, S.J., & Ellis, P.G. (2009). A Handbook for Planning and Conducting Charrettes for High-Performance Projects. 2nd edition. Washington: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
    
    
    20. Morris, A. (1992). Houses and homes. Photographs by K. Heyman. New York: Lothrop, Lee & Shepard.
    
    
    21. Nasar, J. L., & Kang, J. (1999). House style preference and meaning across taste cultures. Landscape and urban planning (44), 33-42.
    
    
    22. Platt, R. (2010). What's that building?. London: Collins.
    
    
    23. Richardson, V., & Friend, A. (2006). How Places Work: Teachers’ Guide. UK: the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE). Retrieved 2006 from www.cabe.org.uk.
    
    
    24. Robbin, I. (1964). Was ist was, Band 023: Architektur. Deutschland: Tessloff.
    
    
    25. Ruggeri, D., & Young, D. (2016). Community in the information age: Exploring the social potential of web-based technologies in landscape architecture and community design. In Frontiers of Architectural Research (5), 15–26.
    
    
    26. Sanoff, H. (2000). Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning. New York: Wiley & Sons Inc.
    
    
    27. Verbeek, P.P., & Slob, A. (2006).User Behavior and Technology Development: Shaping Sustainable Relations Between Consumers and Technologies. Netherlands: Springer.
    
    
    28. Volker, L., Lauche, K., Heintz, J. L., &de Jonge, H. (2008). Deciding about design quality: design perception during a European tendering procedure. Design Studies 29(4), 384-409.
    
    
    29. Oliver, P. (1997). Encyclopedia of Vernacular Architecture of the World. Oxford: Institute for Sustainable Development and Oxford Brookes University.
    
    
    30. Watson K. J., & Whitley, T. (2017). Applying Social Return on Investment (SROI) to the built environment. Building Research & Information, 45 (8), 875-891.